Love this set, tested it out in Curry's the other day, superb 3D, as good as at the cinema and really wanted it though I do a lot of gaming and input lag is reported to be as high as 55ms, which is terrible.

Ok then, show me where you can get 3D of this quality for less than £3000? Have you even tried it out yourself? I seriously doubt you have. You sound like all the other retards spouting the same crap about 3D being a fad etc. You guys are worse than the Apple Haters! I dont care if it cost me nearly £3k, I dont mind in the slightest having to wear the Glasses. When the next Gen comes out I'll buy that too and give this one away.

That is the only thing wrong with this site, many deals get spoilt because the voter doesn't like the product. It doesn't matter if it is £100 or £500 cheaper than the nearest rival, if the voter doesn't like the product or it is not being given away for peanuts they vote cold rather than just comment or leave alone.

Was looking at one of these in curries last weekend. Absolutely blown away and didn't want to hand the glasses back.

I would never buy one at this price as the content just isn't there unless you are stupid/rich enough to squander oodles of cash on DVD's. Watching films which are, at best, average in storyline/acting/effects.

Or if you are into sport in a big way, but watching England lose in 3D is no less painfull, I'm sure.

SO, the main point of this TV, until there is more/better content, is to have one over the neighbours and to impress. Something I certainly don't need to do.

And I'll be baggered if I will line the pockets of the manufacturers in order for them to bring out yet another overpriced 'must have' before finishing the technology that is on offer today.

But it'll be me laughing all the way to the bank when, in three years time, I will purchase a BETTER & BIGGER set for a third of this price - AND it'll accept any new formats that are likely to be around then, too.

I've been very impressed by 3D in the cinema. There were numerous wow factor moments in Avatar, some of which convinced me the technology would transfer very well to the horror genre and enhance the fear factor. Football in 3D looks excellent I got a much better perspective of the ball, you can translate this to Rugby where you often can't tell if the ball has travelled over the goal posts when it has, I believe 3D would enhance some sports. The trailer to Legend of the Guardians which is out in a few months also looks like it makes excellent use of 3D.

There are two main problems with 3D as I see it, firstly the glasses, although if the technology is allowed to progress via consumer adoption then we should be able to view it without the need for glasses one day. The second problem is one I just referred to which is mass adoption of the technology by the consumer, this won't happen quickly but prices need to come down, the ones buying the technology now are subsidising it for the future, but that's how things work in the technology game.

There has to be quality 3D material, Avatar was a poor film, it was almost a tech demo for 3D, 3D didn't work in all areas of the film, but when it did work it was fabulous. Other films this year sought to cash in on 3D, Alice in Wonderland was hopeless in 3D and large sections of the 3D were not even in 3D. Clash of the Titans was also hopeless, the 3D was added post production. If material is to shown in 3D then it needs to be filmed in 3D and designed to work with the medium correctly. Lastly not everything needs to be in 3D! Whether 3D becomes refined enough and cheap enough to be an everyday occurance in many households remains to be seen. Good old 2D would be doing the rounds for a long time to come. Lets hope that we don't get a repeat of the awful colourised films whereby a 3D effect is added to 2D films, ok well that has happened with some of the supposed 3D films of this year.

But it'll be me laughing all the way to the bank when, in three years time, I will purchase a BETTER & BIGGER set for a third of this price - AND it'll accept any new formats that are likely to be around then, too.

I say live for today not for "in three years time" you can't take it with ya...;)

This is a hot deal, don't get me wrong. But I strongly advise anyone to actually check out a few 3D TVs first. Could well be different for individuals, but I personally find the samsung version of 3D "ok" compared to the panasonic ones which is simply breathtaking. And no, I don't own a panasonic one. Just be sure it looks good to your eyes first, you may be quite the opposite to me, in which case lucky you! :-)

Agreed, thanks for that. But can anyone explain to me why so many really old films are listed as "real3D"? This seems to go against the opening paragraph explanation that you need two camera view points for each eye. I can't see how they could have been doing that in 1953 yet not in unreleased blockbusters (i.e. harry potter). I'm confused somewhere, just not sure where. :-)

I believe without researching it further that old 3D was anaglyph 3D and new 3D is polarised. Whether that helps I don't know lol.

Agreed, thanks for that. But can anyone explain to me why so many really old films are listed as "real3D"? This seems to go against the opening paragraph explanation that you need two camera view points for each eye. I can't see how they could have been doing that in 1953 yet not in unreleased blockbusters (i.e. harry potter). I'm confused somewhere, just not sure where. :-)

I saw both Friday 13th 3D and Jaws 3D and for it's day the 3D was awesome, just not convinced it's ready for the home, or ever will be on a major scale.

Contrary to other comments, I don't get 3D tv. I saw Avatar and Toy Story 3 in 3D at the cinema and it didn't really add a great deal. And the image quality actually suffers (more blurring) as a result. It's just a fad if you ask me. Not unless Sony can develop their 3D tv that doesn't need glasses.

This kind of 3d tech will never take off, theyll be half the price they are now next year. Too many people wear glasses, meaning wearing another pair of glasses on top is just not viable. Too many homes have their tv's off centre to their seating arrangements (meaning you wont get the full 3d effect). You also have to factor in the fact that 3d glasses cause migrains and headaches after an hour or so of use (which ofcourse varies from person to person).

The only way 3d will ever be successful is if things like sony's recent patent submission goes ahead.

Avatar was the only good movie in terms of 3D implementaiton (actual movie was so-so).

If they can develop 3D without the glasses (just too cumbersome) than I will consider it as a viable home entertaiment technology. Otherwise I'd rather stick to a decent HD 2D tv and wait for something like holographic TV.... (*sits waiting.... :( *)

Avatar was the only good movie in terms of 3D implementaiton (actual movie was so-so).

If they can develop 3D without the glasses (just too cumbersome) than I will consider it as a viable home entertaiment technology. Otherwise I'd rather stick to a decent HD 2D tv and wait for something like holographic TV.... (*sits waiting.... :( *)

3D is already available without glasses, but its a hell of a lot more expensive than this :{

What's with the 3D debate, its kinda irrelevant to the deal. Is it a good price for this TV?

And as for the £343 priced 40", is 3D the only difference between the two, really...?

No, I believe 3D is a £200-£400 premium depending on size. What your paying for is LED instead of LCD and 200mhz, Wi-Fi built in etc. The picture of this TV is far superiour to any generic HD branded TV.

3D isn't my cup of tea, but I saw the 55" version at a mates over the weekend and it's a feature rich good telly. I won't vote simply because I don't think 3D is worth paying a premium for, however those sharing this view should not vote cold unless you can get the TV or a comparative alternative cheaper elsewhere, after all, this forum is to help those making a purchase buy at the cheapest possible price.